NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system - page 74
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
PapaYozh писал (а):
1. I think this is a pattern. FOREX filters people.
2. The specifics of FOREX is that it ACTS against the majority.
Whoever has remained on it for several years (with money, not on DEMO :) ), is more likely to belong to the minority. And those who think differently are always more difficult. But dissenters are either tolerant of those around them, or they break down (self-destruct).
1. I agree. I think it is an interesting idea (I have not given it much thought).
2. I do not agree. Forex doesn't work against anyone. This is how a river flows, by itself, you want to draw water, want to watch it flowing, want to swim against the current, want to go with the current. Although, if one considers monetary relations, one would be for the majority, but not by the number of participants, but by the amount of money.
3. I agree. Although I don't think it is necessary to have a deadline and real money. Rather, it is the same filter (see p.1), and you can filter out fairly quickly :-). Some people only need one class. Even a little change in approach (not to mention the way of thinking) can understand that it is easier to earn than to lose.
Many times I have asked myself the question: Why does a person need dreams?
Really, what's the use of them. Well, to rest our brains while we sleep...
I'd like to share. I have an interesting hypothesis concerning brain (unfortunately, it is not proved yet). Memory processes, thinking and other brain activity (but not all) take place ..... Not in the brain. As an analogy, we may use the eye, which is the organ with which we "see", but in fact it transforms light radiation into signals which are available to the brain (this is what exactly happens in the brain). But we see, i.e. we get an image with our brain. As the eye is an organ of vision, so the brain is an organ of thought, i.e. a converter. Hence there are many "mysteries" and phenomena attributed to brain, but actually not having a direct relation to it.
I would like to share. I have an interesting hypothesis about the brain (unfortunately, unproven so far). Memory, thinking and other brain activities (but not all) take place .... Not in the brain. As an analogy, we may use the eye, which is the organ with which we "see", but in fact it transforms light radiation into signals which are available to the brain (this is what exactly happens in the brain). But we see, i.e. we get an image with our brain. As the eye is an organ of vision, so the brain is an organ of thought, i.e. a converter. Hence many "mysteries" and phenomena are attributed to brain, but in reality have no direct relation to it.
This is correct.
Man does not think with his brain. A thought is a mental object (MO), i.e. it cannot be generated by the brain (one of the instruments of the physical body). MO is the essence of the metal level of Reality. A person unconsciously uses ME, and the more successful he is in using it, the wider is his circle of notions on which his experience is based (i.e. the higher is the level of personal development - the degree of penetration of his experience into morality and spirituality - attributes of AR and MR (realities).
The degree of influence on objects is determined by the level of development of consciousness. With physical awareness (PA) one is not aware of AR and MR, but is adequately aware of FI, and therefore can locally influence them.
(see the glossary of terms) With increasing of consciousness to the level of MF the person perceives adequately AOs and FOs and therefore is free to choose methods of influencing FOs, AOs and MOs (in particular, he can influence nonlocally - freely create, dematerialise FOs at any point of space and at any time).
The brain is approximately in the same relation to consciousness as a processor is to an algorithm, i.e. it plays a purely technical role serving FS and needs of the PT (body).
It's understandable. All bodily senses are only auxiliary mechanisms serving higher processes for the body that are not classically material. Vulgar materialism does not work.
2 Integer: Dima, you know yourself, a close encounter with sciento never just goes away. Have you read the Creation of Human Ability of the LRH we know? What do you think, is the thetan's ability to directly read information on the molecular level related to the capabilities of the eye - or is it all just mind games, fictional pictures of our Spirit, finally confused in MEST?
2 Yurixx: by the way, Yura, the very concept of entangled states appeared for the first time in Schrodinger's work in 1935 in connection with the famous Schrodinger cat paradox. I did not see it in Zarechny's book. It's in another book, the link to which I posted in my first reply to you, and I like it much better.
The vocabulary in the previous post was autocorrected (and forum editing works).
I meant this 'NATURAL INTELLIGENCE as the basis of a trading system'.
2 Integer: Dima, you know yourself, a close encounter with sciento never just goes away. Have you read the Creation of Human Ability of the LRH we know? Do you think the thetan's ability to directly read information on a molecular level is related to the capabilities of the eye - or is it all just mind games, fictitious pictures of our Spirit, finally confused by MEST?
Yep, got acquainted, now have to unload the letterbox periodically and the paper is glossy stiff - no use in the household. I haven't read Development of Human Ability, although everyone is talking about it, it's not easy to find, although I've made an effort to do so.
As far as I understand, thetan abilities are in no way related to the physical organs of perception. It is also mentioned in the Yoga Sutras of Patnjali about the potential abilities of a person to perceive on any level.
2 Yurixx: by the way, Yura, the very concept of entangled states first appeared in Schroedinger's work in 1935 in connection with Schroedinger's famous cat paradox. I did not see it in Zarechny's book. It is in another book, the link to which I posted in my first reply to you, and I like it much better.
If you're referring to Doronin's book at this link http://quantmag.ppole.ru/QuantumMagic/Doronin1/12.html, I looked it up. Thanks for pointing it out, because I didn't get around to it when you posted it. And you weren't replying to me, you were replying to SK.
Yes, Doronin is definitely cooler. It is, of course, almost entirely devoted to quantum-mechanical aspects of reality, but, due to this, it is much better, clearer and at a higher level of the whole range of issues. In addition, it does not contain those contradictions (at least where I looked), to which Zarechny eventually slipped. And the notions of entangled states and entanglement in general are described there in more detail and quite coherently.
It seemed to me that Doronin was able to go further than Zarechny in his understanding. However, he too has run into some obstacles. No matter how you slice it, 'hereditary materialism', with which we are all smeared due to the well-known circumstances of our lives, is taking its toll. Doronin has already reached an understanding of the role of information, for example, in these passages:
When described in terms of quantum information, a closed system is a single information field that contains data about all possible realisations of the internal structure of the system.
However, he has never been able to realize in what relation, in what mutual connection are information and consciousness. :-(
What he writes here http://quantmag.ppole.ru/QuantumMagic/Doronin1/37.html, already about consciousness proper, not only abuses scientific imagery in absolutely inappropriate place, but also falls into logical traps set for himself.
And I have nothing against confused states or corresponding theory. I have only spoken out against the confusion that Zarechny has brought up in this question. :-) Whereas in Doronin's paper definition of entanglement is very clear and, what is most important, correct:
And, as a consequence of this definition, quite remarkable paragraph:
But quantum entanglement and perfect coherence of behaviour of separate parts of the system has another side as well. In the maximal entangled state, subsystems are completely deprived of independence, they as if have no "free will" and cannot change independently of other subsystems. The smallest "stirring" of any one subsystem is accompanied by simultaneous coordinated change of all other parts of the system. Subsystems have no individual dynamics, no possibility to draw a boundary between itself and its environment and "say": here I am and here I am not. It cannot "feel" its individuality and is incapable of evolving as a separate independent "personality".
Leaving aside the last sentence of the paragraph, I would also add: it is the state of harmony of subsystems that leads to the emergence of a system - a completely different level of quality, another level of self-organization, ordering, structure. And hence a different measure of entropy. Behind this is the realization of one fundamental thing. But Doronin did not get to this, and in this case he is hampered by "considerations" like the following:
Unless you make a bunch of caveats here, this is not correct at all. To understand it, it is enough to take, for instance, a molecule, a totally entangled object, and realize that the molecule continues to be an elementary building block of the chemical structure of matter without losing its level of entanglement, i.e. without losing its nature. And it is possible to change the measure of internal entanglement of the molecule only by destroying it, partially or completely. Harmony, the state of wholeness, is not partial, neither is freshness. They are either there or not. And it depends, and hence entanglement, on the interaction of the subsystems with each other, not the environment. Although, of course, a crude interference of the environment can ruin it. And then debris "manifests", for a molecule is atoms.
But on the whole, the book is interesting and useful. Especially for those who have their own worldview. The fellow scientists are well done. Materialism does not prevent them from moving towards knowing the real nature of Being. This is what open-mindedness, openness to the new, the pursuit of truth means.
Yep, got acquainted, now have to unload the mailbox periodically, and the paper is glossy stiff - no use in the household. I haven't read Development of Human Ability, although everyone is talking about it, it's not easy to find, although I've made an effort to do so.
Well yes, there is that, they just don't come off.
About the book: I can send it to you if you're interested. It's my own translation, but there don't seem to be too many lapses. There are other LRH books as well. But I'm not imposing.
Yeah, I did, now I have to unload the letterbox periodically, and the paper is glossy stiff - no use in the household. I haven't read Development of Human Ability, although everyone's talking about it, it's not easy to find, although I've made an effort to do so.
Well yes, there is that, they just don't come off.
About the book: if interested, I can send it to you. It's my own translation, but there aren't too many bloopers. There are other LRH books as well. But I am not intruding.
It didn't even help to send it back marked "addressee dropped out". Even though my address is wrong, it still finds me :O)
I would love to read it - for-good-letters@yandex.ru